Theories Discussion > Avalanche
Avalanche Theory for Dyatlov Pass Incident is Bolstered by New Study
WinterLeia:
The point of my post was that the study does not prove anything other than under a certain set of circumstance an avalanche can cause non-lethal thoracic damage to a human being. That is all it proves. And the fact that the experts are willing to accept such a theory without any proof that it is tied in anyway to this particular tragedy is very concerning. It hints, at best, that they don’t particularly care, and at worst, that they’re covering something up. Honestly, the strong wind theory seems more plausible to me, though I’m not convinced that happened either.
This area is not prone to avalanches, and the injuries they are talking about are not ones that avalanche victims typically suffer from. When people start talking about more than one avalanche, it becomes even more ridiculous, as one would be out of the ordinary. And the thoracic injuries in the study relied on the human body being caught between two very hard, packed surfaces, such as the tent floor that the hikers reinforced with skis. It wasn’t just based on a person sitting or reclining on a snow-covered ground. In a snow den, especially with bare hands or even mittened hands, they would never be able to pack the ground that hard, unless it was already hard, packed snow. If that were the case, though, then they wouldn’t have even be able to dig out the snow den without tools to do it, tools which they did not have.
Also, Kolevatov was not badly injured. He didn’t even die of his wounds. The medical examiner said he believed the injuries to his head happened after death and that he probably died of low temperature. Why wouldn’t he have suffocated long before he died of the cold if he was in a collapsed snow den? Why wouldn’t he have dug himself and the other three out?
And then there’s where the bodies were carried, ostensibly by water alone. Yet, they still found discarded clothing in the den. Not only that, but the way the bodes of the three males were found, they offered the most resistance to the water flow, being horizontal to the flow rather than vertical, like Luda. And, the flow was still able to pick them up and carry them downstream, but not the clothing spread on the den floor?
They tried this theory back in 1959, and it didn’t hold. The fact that they keep circling back to it indicates a need to believe this or accept it is based on something other than the facts in the case. None of the people that saw the tent, many of them hikers themselves, thought that the snow covering was excessive for the time it was supposedly out there abandoned. The entrance wasn’t even blocked by snow, and there’s evidence that Zolotaryov and Nicolas were outside the tent and thus not in a position where they could have suffered the injuries they did. So, now we’re just going to relocate it to the ravine? I don’t have a problem with it being one of the theories on the table. But when it’s the one that investigators push at every turn despite very real problems with it, that’s when it starts getting suspicious.
Ziljoe:
I agree with your observations winterleia.
Initially I thought an avalanche at the tent location was the most likely cause. I don't think that's the case anymore. There seems to be some confusion over the den, clothes found , distance to the ravine 4 etc.
The ravine 4 injuries are explained well by Igor b. I am happy with his observations and reasoning. If it was a collapse of a snow bridge/cave they wouldn't be able to dig there way out, nor could anyone that was standing outside of the collapse dig them out. The nature of the snow would be like concrete. Maybe some of the others tried but had to give up.
If you Google (tuckerman snow arch collapse) it might help to give an example of the concept. This is obviously a different country and larger ice bridge, later in the season but a tourist was injured and couldn't dig themselves out and his injuries were serious. It's a large snow bridge but it's also a lager river.
It is plausible....but has nothing to do with an avalanche or the cause of exiting the tent.
Squatch:
--- Quote from: WinterLeia on September 09, 2021, 12:49:42 PM ---And then there’s where the bodies were carried, ostensibly by water alone. Yet, they still found discarded clothing in the den. Not only that, but the way the bodes of the three males were found, they offered the most resistance to the water flow, being horizontal to the flow rather than vertical, like Luda. And, the flow was still able to pick them up and carry them downstream, but not the clothing spread on the den floor?
They tried this theory back in 1959, and it didn’t hold. The fact that they keep circling back to it indicates a need to believe this or accept it is based on something other than the facts in the case. None of the people that saw the tent, many of them hikers themselves, thought that the snow covering was excessive for the time it was supposedly out there abandoned. The entrance wasn’t even blocked by snow, and there’s evidence that Zolotaryov and Nicolas were outside the tent and thus not in a position where they could have suffered the injuries they did. So, now we’re just going to relocate it to the ravine? I don’t have a problem with it being one of the theories on the table. But when it’s the one that investigators push at every turn despite very real problems with it, that’s when it starts getting suspicious.
--- End quote ---
I really love this forum because the people who post here are deep thinkers and challenge those with different ideas about what happened. This is good because it helps the truth to emerge.
I do not think the bodies in the ravine were carried by water. In my opinion, moving snow can account for both the injuries to the four hikers and the movement of their bodies through the ravine.
The snow covering on the tent may have been excessive before the rescuers arrived 3.5 weeks later. I do not feel we can look at the scene of the tragedy 3.5 weeks later and assume that was what it looked like when the tragedy occurred. Or make assumptions about how much snow could have blown away. We don't know enough about the weather conditions on the night of the incident and the days/weeks that followed.
If you look at the snow on the tent, it appears very jumbled up. It does not look like snow that accumulates due to natural snowfall. I do believe that Zolotaryov and Nicolas were outside the tent when some kind of snow collapse happened. But why do you assume their injuries happened at the tent? Why not in the ravine?
Let's look at this from a wider perspective and not get caught up in the details. How likely is it that the hikers -- on the side of a mountain in bad weather in a remote location -- encountered Soviet soldiers, UFOs, Yetis or native peoples that night? Isn't it more likely that a natural event or events happened in extremely bad weather that panicked the hikers in the darkness? And made them act out of fear instead of rational thought? Sometimes people just have bad luck and nature does not take pity on those experiencing the bad luck.
I still think there was a partial avalanche at the tent that panicked the hikers, and another more deadly one in the ravine. The fact that three of the hikers tried to head back to the tent hints that their panic wore off and they finally had a better understanding of their situation.
Игорь Б.:
Опровержение любого обрушения снега на палатку:
http://1723.ru/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=5133&view=findpost&p=65874
http://1723.ru/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=5133&view=findpost&p=107249
http://1723.ru/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=5133&view=findpost&p=108064
Jean Daniel Reuss:
Reply #15
--- Quote from: WinterLeia on May 17, 2021, 12:02:12 PM ---..........................
This is an underhanded tactic from the science field that I have sadly seen too many times. They write extremely technical, usually formula-heavy articles that are extremely hard for a layman to read. I sometimes wonder how many people start to read the article, find themselves in a bewildering forest of technobabble where they can’t even tell what point the paragraph is trying to make, and finally give up and decide that the people must know what they’re talking about because they’re super smart, and they did all those experiments, and it’s based on a computer model. Computers are never wrong. Nobody ever seems to be suspicious that the people writing the article are counting on that, because their technical jargon, computer models, and pages of of math equation are hiding several major problems that can be spotted with good, old-fashioned common sense once the scientific and intellectual veneer is pushed aside.
......................................
--- End quote ---
Very good observation ! That is the example of the Gaume & Puzrin article, which is certainly correct and accurate, but is useless for explaining the main official documents and reports currently available on the DPI.
°°°°
Reply #24
--- Quote from: Per Inge Oestmoen on August 27, 2021, 03:33:47 PM ---No, the injuries are not what can be expected from an avalanche.
The damaging of rib cages and pointed crushing of skulls seen in Slobodin and Thibeaux-Brignolle are consistent with injuries we see when people are killed by skilled close combat specialists. An avalanche would unlikely crush skulls and rib cages without damaging the limbs. The fracture pattern on the skull of Thibeaux-Brignolle immediately strikes one as having the shape of a rifle butt, and the fact that Dubinina and Zolotaryov had damaged rib cages with no dislocations or fractures of the limbs makes it pretty safe to exclude the avalanche and snow slad theories. Kolevatov's crushed larynx also is far from what one would find if heavy snow had caused the damage, and I myself have learned the technique in jiu jitsu. I also have learned that a trained fighting specialist very easily can break the rib cage of victims with forceful elbow strikes, and this technique leads to major internal bleeding, shock and death.
It is interesting that Zolotaryov and Dubinina, but not the two others found at the same place, had crushed rib cages. A probable explanation is that since the group almost certainly was attacked by professional killers, these professionals were grouped in three and three. One group took Zolotaryov and Dubinina, while another expedited Thibeaux-Brignolle and Kolevatov. Different methods were used, according to the situation and the resistance the hikers put up.
..........................
--- End quote ---
From the "HOW" part of the TOK theory:
A single group of three attackers, who are not trained in the subtleties of the art of jiu jitsu, but who are able to hit hard and coordinate their strikes in the darkness while trying to isolate each hiker.
No noisy firearms but blunt objects - big sticks wrapped in rags to silently stun.
• The free process, very much in use in the Gulag camps since before 1929, is to immobilise the victim by knocking him out and then simply let him die of cold, which can take a long time depending on the temperature.
• To push in the chests: use of the "trampoline principle" :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trampoline
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trampolining
A 100kg striker jumps 1 metre, feet together, onto Dubinina or Zolotaryov ---> 1000 joules
Rebound of the same striker at the same height ---> 1000 joules
So an impact of 2000 joules, spread over the width of the two feet of the attacker (20 - 25 centimetres), which is very sufficient
• To excise the eyes and the tongue: small knife or better still a solid small spoon whose edges have been made sharp with a grinding stone or a file.
TOK theory = Eduard Tumanov + Per Inge Oestmoen + Aleks Kandr = murder or relentless Altercation on the pass
An unusual and short summary of TOK theory by Anatoliy Stepochkin who says he knows what happened on Dyatlov Pass.
https://dyatlovpass.com/dmitriy-borisov-2019-02-12
«...[/- in Vizhay the -\] Shamans [/- VIP sponsors worried and angry, hired -\] hunters ....[/- mercenary attackers who -\] tracked them down. And in the middle of the night, when they fell asleep, the shamans [/- attackers -\] cut the tarp and launched some kind of dope inside. Hunters [/- attackers -\] surrounded the tent. And when the hikers jumped out, we killed them all. They were 9 or 10....»
°°°°
Igor B has the tremendous quality of proposing a complete and detailed explanation of the DPI.
To be able to judge Igor B theory correctly, you should read the interesting forum :
http://1723.ru/forums/index.php
Unfortunately, it is long to read because there are 110 pages of 20 posts which makes about 2200 posts !
It is entirely in Russian (except for the pictures) and it is very difficult for me (despite the translation software) because I do not know Russian.
••• Leaving the tent without the necessary equipment and suddenly making the air inside the tent unbreathable
===> arrival of a wolverine
The wolverine is perhaps one of the least studied large carnivores in the world. Many people do not know that Wolverine has exactly the same chemical weapons as the skunk...»[/i]
See for example
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skunk_(weapon)
••• For the four of the Den
Reply #31
--- Quote from: Ziljoe on September 10, 2021, 12:34:02 PM ---I agree with your observations winterleia.
......................
The ravine 4 injuries are explained well by Igor b. I am happy with his observations and reasoning. If it was a collapse of a snow bridge/cave they wouldn't be able to dig there way out, nor could anyone that was standing outside of the collapse dig them out. The nature of the snow would be like concrete. Maybe some of the others tried but had to give up.
................
It is plausible....
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: Ziljoe on August 24, 2021, 09:50:54 AM ---If the ravine 4 did use a naturally formed snow cave and it did collapse on top of them , there is a lot of evidence to explain their injuries. This includes broken ribs and fractures, the nature of the fractures , lack of frostbite compared to the other 5 along with other known differences in the autopsy.
--- End quote ---
••• For Kolgomorova, Dyatlov and Doroshenko's injuries, Krivonishenko's burns and crushing of skulls seen in Slobodin and Thibeaux-Brignolle Igor B is more questionable and less convincing.
Perhaps we could try to consult Eduard Tumanov later ?? .
••• I notice that the Igor B theory as well as the TOK theory are consolidated by the meteorological part of the "Lupos theory", i.e. the sudden arrival in the night of a snow storm ---> wind = 35 m/s and temperature = - 50 °C.
Dyatlov Pass Forum > Theories Discussion > Catabatic Wind - Acute Stress Reaction - Cold Air Drops
https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=542.0
https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=542.msg7927#msg7927
https://www.magentacloud.de/lnk/5PMYFi3t
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version